Brown v. Voss

105 Wash. 2d 366, 715 P.2d 514 (1986)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1952, the owners of parcel A granted to the owners of parcel B a private road easement across parcel A for ingress to, and egress from parcel B. Voss (D) acquired parcel A in 1973. Brown (P) bought parcel B in 1977 and parcel C just a few months later. The previous owners of parcel C were not parties to the easement granted. P planned to remove the current residence on parcel B and replace it with a single-family dwelling, which would straddle both parcel B, and C. P began the construction process. In April 1979, D refused P's use of the land for the new easement. By this time, P has spent $11,000 in developing the property for building. D placed logs, a concrete stump and a chain link fence within the easement. P sued for removal of the obstructions and an injunction against D’s interference with their easement and damages. D counterclaimed for damages and an injunction. The trial court awarded each of the parties $1 in damages. The trial court found that P had not made an unreasonable use of its easement in developing their property, other than a trespass for which there was no proof of damages (thus the $1 damage award against P). The court also found that there was no increase of any type of burden on the subservient estate from the use of the easement by Ps for access to parcel C. The trial court also found that if D’s injunction were granted, parcel C would be landlocked and P would not be able to use their property. The court also found that D would suffer virtually no harm nor incur any hardship if their injunction were not granted. The court also found that issuing the injunction that D wanted would be difficult if not impractical to frame and enforce as any violation would result in the parties back in court with little or no damages involved. The court denied D's injunction so long as P used the property for a single-family residence. D appealed. The court of Appeals reversed and P appealed.